Congratulations! Your comment on Fareed Zakaria Blasts Media For Oil Spill Coverage has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_0OVHcIMh0

That's what plays in my head when I see people on every news channel applauding Trump for violating international law. Fareed Zakaria claiming on the telly that the thinks that "Donald Trump became President" by ordering an attack on a sovereign nation's military, without UN mandate, without a vote by Congress, is delicious on so many levels, I had to watch it four times.

Your video, Bill Maher on Donald Trump Interview with Fareed Zakaria, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 12 Badge!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'real, time, april, 2015, Tsarnaev, Bill, Maher, Fareed, Zakaria' to 'real time, april, 2015, Tsarnaev, Bill Maher, Fareed Zakaria, islam, terrorism' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'private, prison, Fareed, Zakaria, failed, war on drugs, corrupt, lobbyists' to 'private, prison, Fareed Zakaria, failed, war on drugs, corrupt, lobbyists' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^messenger:

That Yes or No part was silly. A politician can't make promises like that, and to conclude that the answer must be yes is unfair. I'm glad Cenk went back to his YouTube-only format. Reading scripts to a camera is not his way.
That said, he still has some stupid arguments with guests on his YT show. Case in point: http://videosift.com/video/TYT-pratt-defends-zimmerman-and-cenk-loses-
it. IMO that interview was much worse. I wish he wouldn't do that. It takes away his credibility.>> ^Sotto_Voce:
On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.
Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.



Jesus, that is a horrible interview. But it looks like that's from his Current TV show, so it's consistent with my "TV is ruining Cenk" hypothesis. I never thought he was a particularly profound analyst, but AFAIK he wasn't always this ridiculous. I really think he's deliberately going down the route of garnering attention by providing red meat for the base. Maybe that is the way to be successful on cable news, but it's still pathetic.

Honestly, are there any good hosts on cable news? Maddow is pretty smart, but her constant snark is a little grating. Lawrence O'Donnell does the whole outrage thing a bit too much, although he does it infinitely better than Cenk. I like the format of Chris Hayes' new show a lot, but he really comes across as a smarmy tool. The best I can think of is Fareed Zakaria. Anderson Cooper is decent too, but he covers too much fluff.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Iran' to 'Iran, israel, fareed zakaria, russia, nuclear' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Trancecoach:

Paul Krugman in today's NY Times.
And now that the Democracy has been sold to the highest bidders, the Corporate persons can determine policy based on their bottom lines. The Oligarchs can take their place at the throne and Social Darwinism can run its course. Caviar and refreshments will be served in the sunroom.


OMG! I've never been in a Sunroom!

Glenn Beck is a screaming child, sitting locked away in a playpen. Fareed Zakaria is a fucking journalist. Beck doesn't deserve to be honoured by this sort of attention.

Humor dude.

In reply to this comment by mizila:
Fareed Zakaria?

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Who was that Fareika on CNN guy?

Fareed Zakaria?

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Who was that Fareika on CNN guy?

>> ^bcglorf:

Mussolini(you know, the Italian dictator) INVENTED fascism, he not only wrote a book about it, he wrote THE book. <snip>


Actually the book was ghostwritten by Giovanni Gentile, but Mussolini made it famous!

>> ^smooman:

it would be like invading Italy after WWII........
except Italy didnt enslave its own people, Italy didnt suppress womens civil rights, stoning them to death for adultery, they didnt execute homosexuals, they didnt put to death Italians who didnt agree with or left roman Catholicism (or whatever major religion it was in Italy in that period), and Italy didnt repress higher education.
Ya but besides all that, its totally like invading Italy.....or something


Mussolini(you know, the Italian dictator) INVENTED fascism, he not only wrote a book about it, he wrote THE book. He even used the ideas in seizing power BEFORE Hitler did the same in Germany.

The analogy fails, but not for the reasons you point out. The real question is if we are during or after the war ended, and to point out the allies absolutely DID invade Italy DURING WWII.

>> ^rougy:

^ If the US military leaves on a Sunday, the Taliban will be in power the next Monday.
The place is a bigger hell hole than ever, despite the alleged "millions" that were poured anywhere.
I'm not saying it's your fault or anything, but let's not smear lipstick on a pig and call it a beauty queen.


I agree to your terms, let's just keep the lipstick and beauty queen comparisons off the pre-2001 Afghanistan picture too.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Who has extended the predator strikes into Pakistan? Don't lie to yourself. Democrats are not as clean as you imagine them to be, they are politicians; with a healthy taxpayer income. Not to mention the proceeds they incur from your plutocratic partners.

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I have a hard time respecting your arguments when they come from absurdity, eliminating republicans would stop the wars? I've got a hard time believing that especially when there is no empirical evidence to prove it; just speculation.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Given that defense contractors can contribute as much as they like now, to anyone's campaign. Although I would like a literate third, fourth, fifth party to come in and marginalize the republicans.


You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.